Pergamon

Mechanics Research Communications, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 543-55 I, 2000 Copyright 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0093-6413/O01$-see front matter

PII: S0093-6413(00)00128-2

MODEL UPDATING USING CONSTRAINED OPTIMIZATION

S. V. Modak, T. K. Kundra and B. C. Nakra Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110016, India

(Received 29 March 2000; acceptedfor print 7 August 2000)

Introduction Availability of an accurate dynamic finite element model of a structure is very important to design engineers as it allows them to improve the dynamic design of the structure at computer level resulting in an optimized design apart from savings in terms of money and time. But there may be some inaccuracies or uncertainties that may be associated with a finite element model. The Discretisation error, arising due to approximation of a continuous structure by a finite number of individual elements, is inherent to the finite element technique. While other inaccuracies may be due to the assumptions and simplifications made by the analyst with regards to the choice of elements, modelling of boundary conditions, joints, etc. This is reflected in the difference between finite element model predictions and the dynamic test data. Given the availability of an accurate data acquisition and measuring equipment the measured test data, though may not be precise, is generally considered to be more accurate than analytical model predictions. The modal testing and modal extraction methods, [1,2], are also well developed for obtaining a reliable estimate of the modal data. This has formed the basis for adjustment or correction of a finite element model, in the light of measured test data, which is referred as model updating. A number of model updating methods have been proposed in recent years as shown in the surveys [3,4] and the details of number of them can be found in the text [5]. The model updating methods can be broadly classified into direct methods, which are essentially non-iterative ones, and the iterative methods. A significant number of methods, [6,7,8], which were first to emerge, belonged to the direct category. These methods update directly the elements of stiffness and mass matrices and are one step procedures. The resulting updated matrices though reproduce measured modal data exactly but do not generally maintain structural connectivity and the corrections suggested are not physically meaningful. Iterative methods have generally been based on either modal data or frequency response function (FRF) data. Analytical model updating using modal data in an iterative framework was first proposed in [9]. The updating equations were based on the first order approximation for the eigenvalues and the eigenvectors in terms of updating parameters. In [10] a matrix perturbation technique for recalculation of eigensolution and evaluation of eigendata sensitivities has been used. The effect of including 543

544

S.V. MODAK, T. K. KUNDRA and B. C. NAKRA

second order eigendata sensitivities was studied in [11]. Recently in [12] it is proposed to employ both analytical and experimental modal data for evaluating sensitivity coefficients with the objective of improving convergence and widening the applicability of method to cases where there is higher error magnitude. There have been attempts to use directly the measured FRF data for identifying the system matrices as done in [13]. In [14] a method, named as Response function method (RFM), has been developed which uses measured FRF data to update an analytical model. Parameterization of a finite element model is one of the important issues. Generic element mass and stiffness matrices have been introduced in [15] while in [16] this formulation has been applied to the problem of joint identification. A strategy for parameterization of a welded joint and a clamped end has been proposed in [17] and the parameters updated by sensitivity method. Similarly in [ 18] the methods of parameter subset selection has been extended to the selection of groups of parameters. Model updating using genetic algorithms has been proposed in [ 19,20] as it is expected that the genetic algorithms would help to find the global minimum. An updating approach using neural networks based on FRF-data is proposed in [21]. Iterative method using modal data, which has also been referred as inverse eigensensitivity method (IESM) in the literature, has been among the more successful methods of model updating. This is mostly because of the flexibility it offers in the choice of updating parameters. In this paper a new model updating method, named as model updating using constrained optimization, which seeks to improve the correlation between the analytical and the measured modal data is introduced. The proposed method involves framing of finite element model updating problem as a constrained nonlinear optimization problem which when solved yields corrections to the selected updating parameters. An objective function quantifying the difference between analytical and measured natural frequencies and mode shapes is minimized subjected to inequality constraints based on bounds on updating parameters and values of Modal assurance criterion (MAC) [22]. Some numerical test cases have been presented which were conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Updating using IESM has also been performed with the intention of assessing the performance of the proposed method. Theory_ The proposed model updating method is first described in this section. This is followed by a brief description of the Inverse eigensensitivity method (IESM). a) Proposed method of model updating using constrained optimization: In the proposed method the problem of updating of a finite element model in the light of measured data is framed as a constrained optimization problem. The development of the objective function and the constraints based on modal data, namely natural frequencies and mode shapes, is explained below. Let {f~} and {fA} be the vectors of measured and analytical natural frequencies to be used in updating. These vectors can be established by first identifying correlated mode pairs (CMPs), which is essentially a list indicating correspondence between measured and analytical modes, using a correlation tool like Modal assurance criterion (MAC). The Euclidean norm-based normalized percentage error in natural frequencies is written as,

MODEL UPDATING USING OPTIMIZATION

545

IIG }- LfAI1100

(1)

Equation (1) represents error in natural frequencies in an average sense. The total percentage error in m number of natural frequencies will be, c, = m x F I The norm-based normalized percentage error in m number of mode shapes is written as, (2)

(3)

Where {qSx}i a n d {@A} are the i T simulated experimental and analytical mode shape vectors. The i M term inside summation sign in equation (3) represents an average error in one measured coordinate of iT mode shape vector. Multiplication of this term by n, the number of measured M coordinates, gives a measure of error in an entire ith mode-shape-vector. In this way the total percentage error in m number of mode shapes can be written as, ~'2 = n x F 2 (4)

The objective function to be minimized, based on error in natural frequencies and mode shapes given by equations (2) and (4) respectively, is constructed as,
e(u) = ~ e, + G e2

(5)

Wl and W2 in equation (5) are the weights to be given to the natural frequencies-based and the mode shapes-based errors. Two sets of constraints are imposed on the objective function to be minimized. The first set of constraints are the lower and upper bounds on the vector of correction factors {u}, whose elements represent the unknown fractional corrections to be made to the chosen updating variables, and is written as,

{u}L s <_ {u}< {u}v s

(6)

The second set of constraints seeks to put a lower bound on the MAC-values of the modes used in updating. This set of constraints are imposed to ensure that the level of correlation between measured and analytical modes shapes, represented by MAC-value, existing before updating is at least retained after updating. The constraint for ith CMP is given by following inequality,

546

S.V. MODAK, T. K. KUNDRA and B. C. NAKRA

Where right and left side of the inequality represents MAC-value corresponding to i th CMP before updating and at jth iteration respectively. If the unconstrained version of the method is used, where the MAC-value constraints are not imposed, then CMPs will have to be established at each iteration. The MAC-value is calculated as,

(8)

The objective function given by equation (5) is minimized subjected to inequality constraints given by equation (6) and (7). The analytical natural frequencies and mode shapes appearing in the objective function and constraints are related to analytical stiffness matrix [KA] and analytical mass matrix [MA] by an eigenvalue problem, which for i th mode is written as,

= ,VA[M.]{O.}'

(9)

Where ~A=(2"/~fA) The [KA] and [MA] are in turn the functions of the selected updating 2. parameters. The optimization problem is solved using routine for constrained minimization of nonlinear functions available in MATLAB. The routine is based on sequential quadratic programming in which at every iteration a quadratic programming sub-problem is formulated and solved. This requires the first and second order derivatives of the objective function and the constraints. The first order derivatives were derived and supplied to the routine while the Hessian matrix, the matrix of second order derivatives, is constructed by the routine itself.

b) Inverse eigensensitivity method (IESM): The updating equations for this method are based on linear approximation of the modal data using Taylor's series expansion. For r th eigenvalue (square of the r th natural frequency in rad./sec.) and r th eigenvector (the mode shape), linearisation gives,
;or. = ,~ ~

""fOX " /'p , )

(10)

{:}i ={:}; + Z

{: }, .Ap,

(i1)

Where the eigenvalue and eigenvector derivatives can be calculated from the relationships derived in [23]. Api is a small change in the i th updating parameter Pl, which are nu in numbers. Equation (10) and (11) can be written for all the modes to be used in updating. These equations together, after dividing and multiplying by Pi and then writing ui in place of Api/p,, can be written in the following matrix form,

[sL+,, .... {uLx, =

12)

MODEL UPDATING USING OPTIMIZATION

547

The sensitivity matrix [S] depends on the eigenvalue and eigenvector derivatives and current values of the updating parameters while vector .{AZ} contains difference of experimental and current analytical model natural frequencies and mode shapes. The order of rows in [S] corresponding to eigenvalues is not the same as the order of the rows corresponding to mode shapes. To improve the numerical condition, balancing is done by dividing the rows relating to the eigenvalues on both the sides in equation (12) by the corresponding eigenvalue. The above balanced equation can be solved in a least square way. The {u} so found is used to update vector of physical variables {p} and then the updated version of analytical finite element model is built using these new set of physical variables. Due to the use of linear approximation, in equation (10) and (11), the updating is carried out in an iterative way until convergence is obtained. The accuracy of the measured data can be taken into account in the form of a weighting matrix [W], in which case the solution for {u} is given by,

{u} = (Isl [wlsl)-'[sI l{ z}

Description of the case study

(13)

Updating of an undamped finite element model of a simple but representative fixed-fixed beam structure using simulated experimental data is considered to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. The dimensions of the beam are 9100x50x5 mm and it is modeled using thirty beam elements with node at ends fixed giving a total of 29 nodes each having three degrees of freedom, axial, lateral and rotational. The simulated experimental natural frequency and mode shape data is obtained by generating a finite element model by introducing certain known discrepancies in the thickness of all the finite elements with respect to the analytical model the details of which are given in TABLE 1. The proposed method has been evaluated for the cases of complete, incomplete and noisy data since the real life measured data is always incomplete, as it is not realistic to measure all the coordinates specified in the analytical finite element model, and always contains some measurement noise. Two levels of incompleteness are considered by assuming that only lateral degrees of freedom, at all the 29 nodes and then at 15 nodes selected alternately, are measured. This has been referred as cases of 33.33% and 17.24% incomplete data respectively, the percentages being calculated as number of measured coordinates divided by total number of degrees of freedom of the model. The noise is simulated by adding 2% and 0.2% random error to mode shapes and natural frequencies respectively. The performance of the proposed method is judged on the basis of the accuracy with which the discrepancies between the analytical and the simulated experimental model are predicted. The percentage average error in the vector of correction factors {u} (AECF) is calculated as error in the predicted correction factors as a percentage of the known exact correction factors as given by following expression,
nu

AECF =

Zabs(uexAcr --ueREotcreo)i
i ~. x 1O0 (14)

Eabs(uExAcr)i
i

548 Results and discussion

S.V. MODAK, T. K. KUNDRA and B. C. NAKRA

For all the test cases reported here the lower and upper bound values in equation (6) are taken as -0.5 and 0.5 respectively and solved by taking first six simulated experimental natural frequencies and mode shapes as the available measured data unless stated otherwise. The thickness of each finite element is taken as an updating parameter resulting in thirty number of unknowns. The case of complete data is considered first in which all the degrees of freedom specified in the finite element model are assumed to be known. The discrepancies are predicted exactly as seen in FIG. (1) showing the bar chart for the estimated values of the correction factors, Considering the case of 33.33% incomplete data the discrepancies are again predicted exactly. In quantified terms this is indicated by the value of the index AECF which is found to be 2e-05%. For the case of 17.24% incomplete data the analytical finite element model has also been updated using the balanced version oflESM. Since there is no noise the weights W1 and W2 in equation (5) are taken as unity and similarly no weighting is considered for IESM as well. FIG. (2) shows comparison of the predicted correction factors obtained by the proposed method and the IESM. The predictions obtained by the proposed method are almost exact, as can be seen when compared to FIG. (1), while those obtained by IESM are relatively more in error. Updating is also performed with 5 and 4 number of simulated experimental modes used in updating in addition to the case involving 6 modes. This is done to see the effect on the performance of the algorithm when fewer number of modes are available. TABLE 2 gives a comparison of values of error index AECF after updating obtained by the proposed method and IESM when 4,5 and 6 simulated experimental modes are used. It is seen that the error in predictions obtained by IESM are on much higher side as compared to that obtained by the proposed method. The higher level of error in case of IESM is primarily due to the insufficient weightage the mode shapes receive as compared to the natural frequencies. This is on account of large difference between sensitivities of mode shapes and natural frequencies with former being on the lower side. A Mode shape contains a relatively more detailed modal domain description of the structure than the corresponding natural frequency which being just a single number can be said to be more of a global property of the structure. The use of mode shape information, it seems, is therefore important to guide the algorithm towards a solution that is physically closer to the actual structure. The proposed algorithm uses a normalized objective function, which allows sufficient weightage being given to the error in mode shapes. In practice the mode shapes obtained from a dynamic test are less accurate than the natural frequencies. This may be accounted for by suitably selecting weights Wi and W2 in equation (5) to represent measurement accuracy. For the case of 17.24% incomplete data with 2% noise relative weightings are also incorporated so as to reflect the noise present in the simulated natural frequencies and mode shapes. The weighting matrix [W] is taken as a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries being taken as reciprocals of the variances of the corresponding simulated measured quantity. The simulated noise of 0.2% on natural frequencies and 2% on mode shapes is taken as a measure of standard deviation to estimate the variances. FIG. (3) shows a comparison of predicted correction factors obtained by the two methods. It is clear, after comparing this figure with FIG. (1), that the predicted correction factors obtained by the proposed method are closer to their exact values then those obtained by the IESM. In quantified terms the value of index AECF after updating is found to be 20.7% for the proposed method and 33.6% for the IESM. In terms of the computational effort required, it is found that the proposed method is computationally more intensive and also slower as compared to the IESM. This is on account of the fact that the proposed method is based on nonlinear optimization against IESM that is based on linear approximation.

MODEL UPDATING USING OPTIMIZATION Conclusion

549

A new model updating method based on constrained optimization has been proposed. The proposed method addresses the difficulty that may arise due to the large difference between the sensitivities of natural frequencies and mode shapes. The proposed method, though computationally more intensive, is working successfully for the case of complete and incomplete data. The method also predicted the corrections required in the analytical model in the case of noisy data with reasonable accuracy.

References 1. D.J. Ewins, Modal Testing : Theory and Practice. Research studies press, Letchworth (1984) 2. N.M. Maia and J.M.M. e Silva, Theoretical and experimental modal analysis. Research studies press, John Wiley and Sons (1997) 3 M. Imregun and W.J. Visser, The Shock and Vibration Digest 23(1), 9(1991) 4 J.E. Mottershead and M.I. Friswell, Journal of Sound and Vibration 167(2), 347(1993) 5 M.I. Friswell and J.E. Mottershead, Finite Element Model Updating in Structural Dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1995) 6 M. Baruch and I.Y. Bar-Itzhack, AIAA Journal 16(4), 346(1978) 7 A. Berman and E.J. Nagy, AIAA Journal 21(8), 927(1983) 8 M. Baruch, AIAA Journal 22(4), 561(1984) 9 J.D. Collins, G.C. Hart, T.K. Hasselman and B. Kennedy, AIAA Journal 12(2), 185(1974) 10 J.C. Chen and J. Garba, AIAA Journal 18(6), 684(1980) 11 K.O. Kim, W.J. Anderson and R.E. Sandstorm, AIAA Journal 21(9), 1310(1983) 12 R.M. Lin, M.K. Lim and H. Du, ASME Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 117, 192(1995) 13 C.P. Fritzen, ASME Journal of Vibration, Acoustics, Stress and Reliability in Design 108, 9(1986) 14 R.M. Lin and D.J. Ewins, Proceedings of the 15~ International Seminar on Modal Analysis, Belgium, 141(1990) 15 G.M.L. Gladwell and H. Ahmadian, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 9(6), 601(1995) 16 M.J.Ratclifee and N.A.J. Lieven, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 14(1), 3(2000) 17 J.E. Mottershead, M.I. Friswell, G.H.T. Ng and J.A. Brandon, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 10(2), 171(1996) 18 M.I. Friswell, J.E. Mottershead and H. Ahmadian, Journal of Vibration and acoustics 120(4), 854(1998) 19 R.I. Levin and N.A.J. Lieven, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 12(1), 91(1998) 20 D.C.Zimmerman, K. Yap and T. Hasselman, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 13(4), 609(1999) 21 M.J. Atalla and D.J. Inman, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 12(1), 135(1998) 22 R.L. Allemang and D.L. Brown, Proceedings of the 1st International Modal Analysis conference, Florida,USA, 110(1982) 23 R.L. Fox and M.P. Kapoor, AIAA Journal 12(6), 2426(1968)

550

S.V. MODAK, T. K. KUNDRA and B. C. NAKRA TABLE i Discrepancies between the finite element and the simulated experimental model Element Number 3 5 11 16 25 29 [ All other elements % Deviation in Thickness +20% +40% +25% +40% +30% +30% ] +10%

TABLE 2 Comparison of values of error index AECF when 4,5 and 6 number of simulated experimental modes are used in updating No. of modes used 6 5 4 Using the proposed method 0.091% 0.072 % 3.764 % Using the IESM 25.85 % 34.26 % 33.87 %

0.4 0.3
1.4.,.

.o 0.2

0.1 0

10 15 20 25 Correction Factor Number

30

FIG. 1 Correction factors after updating for the case of complete data predicted by proposed method

MODEL UPDATING USING OPTIMIZATION Proposed method

0.I

551

IESM

0.:

.!
OJ
o

0.1 0 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 CorrectionFactorNumber
1 ~ 1U 13 LU lid ,,~U

Correction Factor Number

FIG. 2 Comparison of predicted correction factors for the case of 17.24% incomplete data

Proposed method
0.4 0.3

IESM
0.~
r

o,, 0.:'"

mu
0 I 5 10 15 20 25 30

Correction Factor Number

01

5 10 15 20 25 30 Correction Factor Number

FIG. 3 Comparison of predicted correction factors for the case of 17.24% incomplete data with 2% noise